* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> If I believed that it would be a hundred-line patch, and would *stay*
> a hundred-line patch, I'd be fine with it. But it won't. I will
> bet a very fine dinner that the feature wouldn't get out the door
> before there would be demands for pg_dump support.
Fine, how about a function that can be called by pg_dump (and anyone
else who has the rights and feels the need) to set that value? That
avoids all need for any new syntax and still gives us the pg_dump and
friends support that will apparently be asked for.
> And arguments
> about whether ALTER should or should not change the timestamp.
There is no case where ALTER should change the *creation* time, imo.
> And I doubt you counted psql \d support in that hundred lines.
> So this is just a can of worms that I'd rather not open.
The last psql \d support change that I looked at (thanks Jon) had a
diffstat (excluding documentation and whitespace changes) of:
sfrost(at)beorn:/home/sfrost/Downloads> cat qq | diffstat
describe.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Just saying. ;)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2013-01-03 03:13:58|
|Subject: Problematic dependency in plpython Makefile [Windows]|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2013-01-03 02:06:01|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on